Many jurors, like many other people, watch a lot of TV. Crime related TV tends to be unrealistic. In it, the bad guy always gets caught, the good guys always obtain a conviction, and it all gets done in less than an hour. CSI is one of the most popular ever, and has been spun off into several other CSI type shows. All of them follow the same formula. Attractive people do exciting work solving crimes through forensic science. In The real world, crime scene investigators generally do not carry guns or question suspects. They do go to crime scenes, but generally do little other than collect, photograph, and impound physical evidence at the direction of a detective. Almost all of them have backgrounds in the physical sciences (such as chemistry), rather than Criminology or Criminal Justice. Most of their time is spent doing very mundane work like analyzing seized drug samples to confirm that that are, in fact, the drug in question (which everyone already knows anyway).
Shows like CSI have influenced many potential jurors to believe that trace evidence is always conclusive. In reality, much of it is little better than junk science.
Review the following materials before responding to the prompt:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/NAS+Report+on+Forensic+Science/$FILE/Edwards,+The+NAS+Report+on+Forensic+Science.pdf
Prompt
Respond to the following questions:
Do you ever watch CSI? Have you ever considered trying to become a crime scene investigator?
What do you think about the reliability of trace evidence? Do you consider it very reliable? What other types of evidence do you think might be equally or more reliable?
Should any other measures be implemented to control or limit the admissibility of trace evidence?
